At the
meeting, participants expressed ACA's continued support for Commission action
in the wholesale programming market rulemaking (MB Docket No. 07-198) to
address the various harms that result from the abuses of broadcasters and programmers
in their negotiations with multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). Participants urged prompt Commission adoption
of the proposals contained in ACA's January 3, 2008 comments filed in this
docket.

Participants also discussed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would
allow Class A television stations to apply for full-power status and gain must
carry rights, which was included on the FCC's tentative agenda for the next
open meeting scheduled for October 15, 2008.
It was made known that many ACA members already carry Class A television
stations that offer local and diverse programming that is desired by the communities
and customers served by the operator, and asserted that allowing all Class A stations
the right to demand must carry would eliminate the market-based incentive that today
drives them to offer compelling content.
Participants suggested that the best first step to increasing the amount
of local and diverse programming on television would be for the Commission to
adopt the proposals put forth by the ACA in the wholesale programming market
rulemaking, which would prohibit broadcasters and programmers from refusing to
offer their channels on a standalone basis on reasonable rates, terms, and
conditions. Not having to carry unwanted
programming as a condition to carrying wanted programming would free up small,
independent cable operators' channel capacity and cash resources that could
then be used to carry more independent networks, including Class A stations. Setting aside concerns about the Commission's
statutory authority and other constitutional issues raised by additional must
carry burdens, participants stated that if Class A television stations were
granted full-power status and must carry rights, there must be exemptions for
small cable systems with limited channel capacity and those with a small subscriber
base. Moreover, it was noted that if Class A television stations
were provided a more streamlined path toward full-power status and mandatory
carriage rights, they should be required to comply with all existing obligations of full-power stations, including the
airing of a minimum amount of children's programming, and other obligations
that may be proscribed in the future, such as having a community advisory
board, having a physical presence at their studios during all hours of
operation, and filing quarterly performance reports, to ensure that Class A
television stations, just like full power stations are adequately serving their
local communities' needs.

Finally, participants urged the Commission
to promptly issue its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the retransmission
consent quiet period. During this
discussion, participants noted that a significant number of small cable
operators' retransmission consent agreements expire on December 31, 2008, at
11:59 PM. As such, the ACA agrees with
other commentators that the quiet period must begin prior to the expiration of
these contracts, and believes December 15 of this year, if not sooner, to be an
appropriate start date to minimize consumer confusion during the weeks and
months before the digital transition. In
response to NAB's assertion that consumers would not confuse a retransmission
consent dispute that happens in January of 2009 with some digital television transition
related matter,[1]
participants pointed to findings in the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) latest report on the extent of consumer awareness about the transition. According to their polling, among those who
would be unaffected by the
transition, which would include many cable and satellite TV subscribers, "30
percent indicated they have plans to ready themselves for the transition -
despite the fact that no action will be required to maintain television
service."[2] For these consumers, there is substantial risk
that the loss of a signal due to a retransmission consent dispute in January would
cause them to needlessly purchase a digital-to-analog converter box, or apply
for a government coupon of limited supply out of confusion. With regard to the NAB's claim that viewers
who lose signals as a result of retransmission consent impasse would not be
confused because they would be "inundated with information about the dispute by
DBS and cable providers as well as local news outlets,"[3]
participants pointed out that to the extent that retransmission consent
disputes resulting in dropped signals are covered by local news outlets, often little
to no attention is paid to those involving small cable operators.

[2]
Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,
United States Government Accounting Office, before the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, June 10, 2008, at 4 (available athttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08881t.pdf).